Winrates indicate horrible balance

Let me guess:
1) 99% axis play-rate
2) 4-digit ranks


Oh look, 99% axis playrate rank 3000 4v4 player

So, according your bias, my opinion doesnt count, or what?
Do you think yours?

And why do you think that the rank shows something about my knowledge about allies or not?

According Rosbone the rank system is flawed, and what if I would tell you that my best rank was 120ish in 4v4.

That's some strong Denglish right there, I can already hear the german accent when only reading it. Calm down a little, by the way.

So, according your bias, my opinion doesnt count, or what?
Do you think yours?

And why do you think that the rank shows something about my knowledge about allies or not?

According Rosbone the rank system is flawed, and what if I would tell you that my best rank was 120ish in 4v4.

No offense to you personally, but I think there is no point of arguing balance of the game with bronze-iron league player (In terms of LoL).

I can bat my money on me that I can win any 4-digit ranked player with left hand tied up with my least played faction OKW or Sov.

i got into top 250 in 4v4 play as randos axis. currently i am top 380.

yap 3v3 4v4 are not a good benchmark.

And why do you think that the rank shows something about my knowledge about allies or not?

I never said rank means everything or a lot.


But how can anyone take you serious when you run from thread to thread repeating how strong allies and how weak axis are when you have THAT playercard


What on earth do you know about allies when you played them like 20 times total

That's some strong Denglish right there, I can already hear the german accent when only reading it. Calm down a little, by the way.

Please leave him in quiet.

He has maybe much more idea how to play this game as you.

I like it not!!

I never said rank means everything or a lot.


But how can anyone take you serious when you run from thread to thread repeating how strong allies and how weak axis are when you have THAT playercard


What on earth do you know about allies when you played them like 20 times total

I know exactly when I fail as axis and then not, because I know the strength of allies gameplay and trying to avoid it

MG42 cannot be underestimated. I'd love to see the stats of 3v3/4v4 with only OKW as the Axis.

In my opinion, the Wehrmacht get far to much MP in team games, they can spam out tanks and units non stop, losses mean nothing at all. You would have never guessed how the war was going if you only looked at this game, where the axis where spamming more and more panthers and tigers the second they were destroyed.

MG42 cannot be underestimated. I'd love to see the stats of 3v3/4v4 with only OKW as the Axis.

That would be interesting indeed, can this be filtered?

In my opinion, the Wehrmacht get far to much MP in team games, they can spam out tanks and units non stop, losses mean nothing at all. You would have never guessed how the war was going if you only looked at this game, where the axis where spamming more and more panthers and tigers the second they were destroyed.

What a nonsense thing to say, sorry buddy.

[...]I fail as axis and then not, because I know the strength of allies gameplay

That's a beauty right there. Really the yellow from the egg, one could say.

MG42 cannot be underestimated. I'd love to see the stats of 3v3/4v4 with only OKW as the Axis.

You can, just scroll down a bit. You only have information for May as that was a feature which was added recently.

4xOKW = 54% (2099)
4xOH = 46% (1583)

Both are the least popular combination.

Most popular combination is 2xOKW/2xOH with a 62% (19330). Against the most common match up from allies it sits at 57% (BSSU)

BSSU sits at 51% (9449), been the only one positive combination. Followed closely at 49% by BBSU and BSUU (5349/5371) and SSSU (3632) at 48%

You are also free to check http://coh2chart.com

Last update was on april 2017. Even in it you can see pretty much the same numbers as we having now. There was never a time where allies had a better stats in teamgames, unless they\axis were just broken.

Axis advantage comes not from the balance. It comes from the nature of teamgames and to be more specific:

1) Caches
2) Map designes
3) Concentration of whole army in one place
4) Tech rushes
5) Reliance on teammate to fill the holes
6) Overall forgivness

Some ppl preatching that allies are just UP in lategame. Alright.
Why then in 1v1 almost all factions (exept OKW) have 50% winrate? Should we also buff OKW then to make them 50% in 1v1 ignoring the fact that they perform much better in teamgames and it might ruin the balance, but since, you know, we all want 50% winrate in all the gamemodes for all the factions right, it will be alright. We can ignore top 200 players, we can ignore 1v1, sure. Then lets collectively ask dev team to "fuck this 1v1, fuck tourneys, balance game around 4v4", then everyone would be happy?

If anything the only way to balance teamgame - balance mechanics to soften the difference between 1v1 and 4v4. Like for instance limiting howis to 1 or doing something with caches.

It 1v1 its a common situation to have first medium around 15 to 19 min mark, in 3v3 and 4v4 first medium arrieves at 11-12 mins of the game, panthers arive at 14-15 mins of the game.

1) Caches
2) Map designes
3) Concentration of whole army in one place
4) Tech rushes
5) Reliance on teammate to fill the holes
6) Overall forgivness

7. Stock army has everything. (No need for commander to pick rocket arty)

Should we also buff OKW then to make them 50% in 1v1 ignoring the fact that they perform much better in teamgames

Actually, yes we need to buff volks late game performance as well as some rebalancing (including timing nerfs on walking stuka!) to balance team games.

Of course, that being said, the most urgent needed buff would be for UKF, but I guess not much people have interest in it.

If anything the only way to balance teamgame - balance mechanics to soften the difference between 1v1 and 4v4. Like for instance limiting howis to 1 or doing something with caches.

1. Rebuild map - This is what Starcraft1 & 2 used to do to punish Terran for their raw power.
Currently, their is so many lane map that base is far from the conflict zone & takes much time to retreat and get back & path is very limited.
I don't see why maps are designed to be in favor of Axis, when they are indeed at the strong position.

2. Change timing of the units - this would be a good example. Does not hurt 1v1, but helps balancing team game.

3. Change raw stat of some units that are only used in team games. - Not my taste TBH, because I don't think they are major issue here, but this is at least another option to balance team game w/o affecting 1v1.

4. Commander Rebuild - Yes, the patch is otw, 1v1 / 2v2 / 3v3+4v4 has different commander favor, so this is another option.

That's only for one month though.

For march, the numbers for Top 200 2v2 are UKF 40.3 Soviets 49.2 USF 48.7
For april, UKF 41.9 Soviets 50 USF 49.

The numbers at the top have a tendency to even out because of the higher levels of skill difference. Usually, top10 players are much better than top 30, 30 better than 100, etc. A top 30 UKF player is not going to have much of a problem beating a top 100. This is true more in 1v1's than other modes, but still is a factor in the other modes.

Several patches ago, I'd bet that the UKF win rate was at least 50%. The balance team nerfed the accuracy of the Firefly and Commet, as well as inflating the pop cap of the UKF tanks badly (Churchill included). They nerfed it to the point that the UKF has no resiliency in a 4v4 slugfest. They gave a tiny bit back on emplacements, but emplacements aren't a path to victory against good players.

imo allies are very strong in late game 4v4.
it's the early game where the extra micro needed for allies factions that is tripping non-top 200 players.

in my rando 4v4 top 400 matchup, you will hard press to say German are easier

I think, to balance both 1v1 and team games, you need to be able to make changes/restrictions in the respective domain only. If it's not possible to e.g. limit certain units in certain game modes, I dont think we will come a lot closer to balance in team games without hurting 1v1. This is just too big of an optimization problem. The only exception would be a rework of most of the 4v4 maps I guess.

While the stats are interesting for USF/SOV, I think people need to accept that balancing UKF isn't possible at this point:

Honestly, with the balance restrictions the patch team has been given, UKF isn't fixable. The core faction design is missing too much, especially when compared to the current state of the other factions (lots of utility, build options, indirect fire, etc.).

UKF is missing many core functions (snares on mainlines, mobile indirect fire, etc.) which results in them swinging from "OP" to "UP" as single units are buffed or nerfed. Meanwhile, the few reliable mainline units they do have are each burdened with so many different tasks and abilities that they simply can't be good in any of them.

Given the opportunity, and provided they're willing, the balance team could fix UKF - but it would require a redesign larger than any before. Basically every unit needs a pretty big overhaul, some units need to be completely removed, and others need to be added. It would require a ton of work, probably take half a year (or more), and chances are a lot of players wouldn't like it as UKF would basically be a new faction; but that's basically the only way I can see UKF being 'fixed'.

Until then, UKF isn't really going to be viable in terms of game design.

imo allies are very strong in late game 4v4.
it's the early game where the extra micro needed for allies factions that is tripping non-top 200 players.

in my rando 4v4 top 400 matchup, you will hard press to say German are easier

This. At "top levels" in team games, on the whole, allies have it easier once they're in late-game.

The important part to note is that this is specifically at top levels - i.e. top 200 (or maybe lower), using meta commanders, and with good teamwork. Outside of that, yes, axis has an easier time with it's more rounded our roster of units, generally stronger "jack of all trades" docs, and a few obnoxious units/abilities (super heavy TDs, stuka, etc.).

However, if you have the ability to utilize their abilities, units, and good teamwork, allies get handed an absurd amount of power mid-late game.

Why is everyone talking always about LARGE reworks that take years to complete? What's to say that the "new" brits would not be poorly made? Most people want reworks just for the sake of reworking. Brits can easily be fixed by adjusting a couple of things like the 5man upgrade, giving them proper blob controls, making units unique that does not require some gimmicky ability (like the vickers getting an ability instead of vet range) and things like that. Everyone always talking about some huge reworks in a game with more variables than an average american can count. Does anyone really think they can balance it out? Create some perfect balance paradise by completely reworking everything? It's not really hard and the only reason it's not being done is because Sander and his lackeys won't be bothered. Relic is probably also limiting them but if they are doing it for free (I assume that they are not getting payed), why would anyone invest a braincell to do a good job. Especially when those you have are quite precious.
So, no. A rework is not needed, just a little bit of brainstorming and a decisive balance team.

? Adjusting Bolster is already a big rework of the faction cause its a central part of their infantry power. You are either pretty naive or rather clueless.
If stock land mattress is already out of the question (cause relic wont allow such "major" changes), what buff/adjustment do you think will change anything?
As if a good vet 1 ability on the vickers is going to change anything. Such smaller changes were already done by the balance team (good vet 1 on cromwell, better firefly, adjusting early game diversity, better average commander quality).

The way i see it, the balance team already tries everything they can to improve brits.

what buff/adjustment do you think will change anything?

1. Give tommies anti-tank grenade (It's not like they are uncountably good at inf. fight now)
2. Reduce pop cap of tanks.
3. buff AEC anti-inf. (more like Stuart level)
4. Remove commander tank's self-nerf. (also adjust buff to be balanced)


5. Move snieper to 0 tier, instead move UC to 1 tier with fuel cost removed.